I understand the need to address the corruptive forces of "Money in politics"....just seems to miss the MORE Important Issue...A little too narrow,and complicated to garner the support neccessary for success,I fear....

uncommonfilth wrote:I understand the need to address the corruptive forces of "Money in politics"....just seems to miss the MORE Important Issue...A little too narrow,and complicated to garner the support neccessary for success,I fear....

Getting the money out of politics would lead to the second issue being dealt with due to an increased level of populism- or so the theory goes.

To me, it's not just getting money out of politics, it's keeping money out of politics.

This Issue just seems Too Complicated to Focus On As a Primary Issue...I'd prefer to See it Pivot to "Transparency" and the Obvious Reforms that arise for the Fin. Ind(glass-stietgal,campaign money,lobby money,gov't fraud/waste,etc)..I REALLY see this Bogging Down this movement...Too easy to Debate into Oblivion...We let those with Power and Money Complicate most of this to the point that it is...I think it's going to take a more Conservative, and focused approach on achievable goals, (to start,at least,until there's Significant momentum) in order to realize the success I'm hoping for..

I have always wondered why corporations give money in the first place. After all, if, as they say, "it's not a bribe" then where does this fit into profit and loss? That's like a business throwing a $3 million party "just cause we want to." If I as an investor in a business I want to see them focus on increasing my shareholder value and they could just bump those moneys back to me as a dividend. It's like increasing CEO (and other senior officer) pay. How does this increase my shareholder value? If the CEO gets a 25% salary or bonus increase then I, as the shareholder, want one too.

Of course the real answer is that corporations view political contributions as "investments" on a par with any other. Now, to be sure, few business expect a quid pro quo vote from their representative/senator on issues that directly affect them. That WOULD be bribery. Instead they know that anyone who takes their money will be favorable to their interests. I mean, does anyone believe that when Exxon/Mobil backs (through an appropriate group) a candidate whose primary motivation is right-to-life or anti-gay marriage they're really saying "wow, we are on board with you over that whole abortion stuff". Of course not.

We need to take campaigning back to something about the issues and remove the blizzard of issue ads funded by whoever.

One more thing: if this was all right and good and american, why then would these business hide their political activities behind layers of fake interest groups and ad campaigns promoted by "Concerned Americans About blah, blah, blah."

It is because they know it is wrong and they are wary of the negative feedback.

ventijohn wrote: I have always wondered why corporations give money in the first place. After all, if, as they say, "it's not a bribe" then where does this fit into profit and loss? That's like a business throwing a $3 million party "just cause we want to." If I as an investor in a business I want to see them focus on increasing my shareholder value and they could just bump those moneys back to me as a dividend. It's like increasing CEO (and other senior officer) pay. How does this increase my shareholder value? If the CEO gets a 25% salary or bonus increase then I, as the shareholder, want one too.

Of course the real answer is that corporations view political contributions as "investments" on a par with any other. Now, to be sure, few business expect a quid pro quo vote from their representative/senator on issues that directly affect them. That WOULD be bribery. Instead they know that anyone who takes their money will be favorable to their interests. I mean, does anyone believe that when Exxon/Mobil backs (through an appropriate group) a candidate whose primary motivation is right-to-life or anti-gay marriage they're really saying "wow, we are on board with you over that whole abortion stuff". Of course not.

We need to take campaigning back to something about the issues and remove the blizzard of issue ads funded by whoever.

One more thing: if this was all right and good and american, why then would these business hide their political activities behind layers of fake interest groups and ad campaigns promoted by "Concerned Americans About blah, blah, blah."

It is because they know it is wrong and they are wary of the negative feedback.

I think that NO Matter what we do, or pass those witht the inclination to corrupt/ gain favor in their Interests, are going to find a way..but if we devise a way to provide full disclosure, at least we'll have a better chance of knowing who's bending us over..And I believe that addressing what I think is a more Obvious contributor/encouragement for Disparity..The "Cap" on Soc.Sec Tax...fix that and take the momentum from this victory and move to the next simplest easy to reach 'lowest hangin fruit'

The root cause of today's inequity is twenty years of essentially unfettered big money influence on government decision makers (elected and appointed). The return to fair equity requires the elimination of that influence. Getting the money out has to come first, otherwise the proverbial battlefield is not level. It cedes the high ground to the opposition before the debate begins.

Continuing in that vein, the following is from a personal letter to a friend who is concerned that even with a wall separating big money from government decision makers, indirect influence would continue in the form of deceptive "educational" advertising.

The OWS movement motivated me to turn off the TV and online poker games to look into the movement. I found that the core issue being addressed is one that got me on the warpath back in 2008 when I spent many hours sorting out the fraudulent collusion between Goldman, JP Morgan, AIG and others.

Back then I gave up when it became clear that lawmakers and regulators had to have been accessories before, during and after the fact, some with malice and some due to incompetence/ignorance. It appeared that the looters would never see criminal prosecution and fines levied would never approach actual damages.

When OWS finally broke the wall of media silence (thank you NYPD), I had the audacity to think that maybe, just maybe this popular uprising can force truth into the open. That would inevitably lead to the creation of a wall between big money and government modeled after an updated Glass-Steagall Act which would also become law again. Had both of those walls been in place for the past twenty years, there would not be the untenable disparity between the 1% and the 99% that has us swapping emails tolday.

I understand the concerns you point out with regard to continued spending directed at voters (indirect influence). None the less, an amendment to make direct financial influence on government decision makers not only illegal, but very difficult to pull off (due to transparency) would make a huge difference even allowing that indirect influence would continue. Enhanced transparency would include information intended to discourage nepotism and remember that an ex-legislator's value declines along with the opportunity to exercise influence.

That said, there is no reason to allow indirect influence to continue in total darkness. Imagine a scenario in which transparency regulations are strengthened for 501(c) organizations in general and 501(c)4 groups either come under additional scrutiny or are abolished by reversing the Citizens United decision. In other words competing organizations know who is behind the opposition and are free to use that information in their own publications and ads. After a period of entertaining ad wars, coupled with a government sponsored education campaign explaining how to do basic fact checking, I suspect dollars spent on indirect influence would soon decline.

Given a congress directed by the will of the people instead of by special interest dollars, we should be able make the changes needed to restore a level playing field to the 99%. If not, democracy is not such a great system after all.

The most difficult issue I have to deal with in spreading the word is the perception that the 99% want hand outs and/or a free ride in one way or another. It is very important IMO to make it very clear that the goal when it comes time to deal with inequity is simply a fair playing field. Demanding "reparations" in the form of hand outs is the road to a movement in which the 1% now in control does battle with the 1% representing an impotent movement.

emadera52 wrote:The root cause of today's inequity is twenty years of essentially unfettered big money influence on government decision makers (elected and appointed). The return to fair equity requires the elimination of that influence. Getting the money out has to come first, otherwise the proverbial battlefield is not level. It cedes the high ground to the opposition before the debate begins.

Continuing in that vein, the following is from a personal letter to a friend who is concerned that even with a wall separating big money from government decision makers, indirect influence would continue in the form of deceptive "educational" advertising.

The OWS movement motivated me to turn off the TV and online poker games to look into the movement. I found that the core issue being addressed is one that got me on the warpath back in 2008 when I spent many hours sorting out the fraudulent collusion between Goldman, JP Morgan, AIG and others.

Back then I gave up when it became clear that lawmakers and regulators had to have been accessories before, during and after the fact, some with malice and some due to incompetence/ignorance. It appeared that the looters would never see criminal prosecution and fines levied would never approach actual damages.

When OWS finally broke the wall of media silence (thank you NYPD), I had the audacity to think that maybe, just maybe this popular uprising can force truth into the open. That would inevitably lead to the creation of a wall between big money and government modeled after an updated Glass-Steagall Act which would also become law again. Had both of those walls been in place for the past twenty years, there would not be the untenable disparity between the 1% and the 99% that has us swapping emails tolday.

I understand the concerns you point out with regard to continued spending directed at voters (indirect influence). None the less, an amendment to make direct financial influence on government decision makers not only illegal, but very difficult to pull off (due to transparency) would make a huge difference even allowing that indirect influence would continue. Enhanced transparency would include information intended to discourage nepotism and remember that an ex-legislator's value declines along with the opportunity to exercise influence.

That said, there is no reason to allow indirect influence to continue in total darkness. Imagine a scenario in which transparency regulations are strengthened for 501(c) organizations in general and 501(c)4 groups either come under additional scrutiny or are abolished by reversing the Citizens United decision. In other words competing organizations know who is behind the opposition and are free to use that information in their own publications and ads. After a period of entertaining ad wars, coupled with a government sponsored education campaign explaining how to do basic fact checking, I suspect dollars spent on indirect influence would soon decline.

Given a congress directed by the will of the people instead of by special interest dollars, we should be able make the changes needed to restore a level playing field to the 99%. If not, democracy is not such a great system after all.

The most difficult issue I have to deal with in spreading the word is the perception that the 99% want hand outs and/or a free ride in one way or another. It is very important IMO to make it very clear that the goal when it comes time to deal with inequity is simply a fair playing field. Demanding "reparations" in the form of hand outs is the road to a movement in which the 1% now in control does battle with the 1% representing an impotent movement.

Especially the end...I'm in the South, if this resembles anything like a punitive "reparations" demanding movement,it's lost any hope of capturing the 70% or so of the Electorate, I believe is available..And that letter speaks much more to what I feel is the More Important goal regarding the issues of "money out of politics",or Financial regulatory reform, and that was "Transparency",with the obvious reforms(like;glass-stiegal,or whatever makes the most sense) exposed by said, transparency...I can sell people on getting transparency, and like the letter stated,I believe,that if they couldn't hide it they'd be spending less..Now if we can get that "wall" built, great...I'm just pretty sure that those with the desire will be bulding a higher ladder...That said we're certainly pretty close to a consensus regarding the "money" issue, However I respectfully Dis-agree in that I see, at least one of the earlier Roots of Disparity as being Inevitable more so, because of the "Cap" on soc.sec.tax...It's the only Revenue that we "Cap", and this cap encourages employers, to hold/push down all wage/salary earners near or below the "cap"...$106k(currently), while at the same time encourages them to inflate any of their 1% earning(friends,family,frat bro's,) employees, earning more than the "cap" to as high a pay as their stockholders will tolerate..thus the Ridiculous "gap" in CEO vs. workers pay...the more they pay those above the "cap" the lower the RATE of Tax Gets..Fixing this would make solvency moot FOREVER, for the solution is built in with the Reform, for any future solvency questions..This Reform could also allow us to target the soc.sec tax to ENCOURAGE Middle Class Growth, INSTEAD of IT'S Decline...So this is the problem ALL OVER THE PLACE...We ALL THINK WE KNOW BEST....SO IT IS FOR THE LEFT....LIKE HERDING CATS....Be nice if we could have productive debate!!!...ho...hum...